Jump to content
TripleCP

Leveling up structures

Recommended Posts

If you played BFME, you may remember how resource producing and unit producing structures gained in levels over time and usage. A level 3 Farm produced more income than a brand new one, a Level 3 barracks produced units faster, etc. Buildings also became stronger and in some cases gained their own (weak to moderate) defensive armament at Level 3.

 

Why not try it in RA3?

 

1) Power Plants - slowly gain in efficiency over time. +25% at Level 2 and +50% at level 3. Keep your starting Power Plants alive and you'll get fewer "Low Power" annoyances.

 

2) Refineries - increased cashflow per return load, either over time or (better) depending on how much income it has generated (10,000 for level 2 and 20,000 for level 3, for example). Let’s say a Tier 1 Refinery gives 1000 per ore load, then a Tier 2 would be 1250 and a Tier 3 would be 1500.

 

3) Radar - could increase its detection range/LOS with each level.

 

4) Barracks/War Factories - Slightly faster build times and reduced costs the more it is used. Again, allows the devs to slow down early game spamming without dragging out the late game. Tier 3 Factories could also produce Veteran units.

 

5) Neutral Tech Structures could also work the same way. The longer you take and hold an Oil Derricks, the more income it will generate.

 

6) Defenses - becomes more durable over time and/or increases in range and firepower. Less problems with tower crawling/spiderbasing, but still allows for potent base defenses provided that they're positioned well in advance of attacks. Tier 1 defenses could also become more viable into the late game.

 

Benefits:

1) Allows the devs to set a slower pace for early game resource gathering and build times but still move it closer to C&C3's pace in the later phases to avoid drawn out games.

2) Rewards harassment more - if you take out a couple of your opponents' starting Power or Econ structures, the damage is greater than simply the replacement cost. Also gives more incentive to protect those buildings rather than just buying and selling them whenever convenient.

3) In general, this system takes the gameplay benefits of unit veterancy and applies them to structures, as well.

 

This could compliment, rather than replace, existing purchasable building upgrades or specialized structures like the Ore Purifier.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by TripleCP

Share this post


Link to post

As ive stated on the off. forums, id really like EA to port some cocnepts from older games such as this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I appreciate the support. Do me a favor and keep chiming in on that thread, though, otherwise it will get buried by the endless threads bickering about storyline and how to make a "true Red Alert" game.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say why not! RA2 was revolutionary wacky game, but with awesome atmosphere. Many modders have added paratanks and crazy stuff that makes it's way perfectly. So I'd like to see this feature :)

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest with you, if the community bicker about "true Red Alert" they need to whack their heads on a wall constantly until they bleed. The Red Alert universe (unlike the Tiberian Universe) is not soaked in concrete lore or canon must haves. Obviously you have Tesla Tech, Iron Curtain, Chronosphere, Tanya etc. But all these are confirmed as in the game already, and are the only "lore" items.

 

The Red Alert universe is all about crazy tech, weird changes and unstable storyline. Long may it continue.

 

As for your ideas, I don't really agree to all of them as such. Bonuses should be worked for and not earned by how long you keep your structures standing. Neutral structures like Oil rigs & Derricks I can understand since they create strategical advantage. But I don't think the other points in that first list really work too well as game mechanics in the C&C universe as a whole.

 

I'm more for the idea of creating a deeper tech research and upgrade mechanic. Therefore increasing costs for higher research techs and making more tiers (5-8 for example instead of just 3) across the entire tech tree. This makes it tougher to harass early on with tanks and aircraft, and instead making the player more reliant on infantry to do the job instead. It also allows the player to balance their economy more between research/upgrades and building units and structures. This blows the door open to more strategic possibility.

 

The main key though is to add in certain rewards or incentives so the game doesn't turn into a turtling arms race. I'm someone who's in favour of pop caps so that players can't mass and trash in a single attack, but we all know that's not what C&C is about either.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, glad there's some support. I'll post more specific examples along with my rationale, and would appreciate any feedback:

 

Power Plants: slowly gain efficiency with time. [Maybe this should be “time powered up,” but it wouldn’t matter too much given that power plants are only rarely shut down (for short durations, at that) by things such as EMP strikes.]

Level 2 - +10% health, +25% power output.

Level 3 - +25% health, +50% power output. (Possibly an additional feature such as slow self-repair or a defensive encasement which would give bunker-style armor when closed but also shut down the plant.)

 

Harassing your opponent’s power is fun, but rarely all that effective. When experienced players fear losing a power plant, they often just sell and replace them since the net loss is minor. This feature would make it more worthwhile to both attack and to defend power plants. Players who keep their power plants alive will have to worry less about hearing “Low Power” and spend less time & money on constructing new ones. On the other hand, having a group of Level 3 reactors taken out by a super-weapon will be that much more painful because you’ll have to build 50% more new ones to replace them.

 

I think it would be a mistake to give power plants too large a bonus outside of greater efficiency. Power should remain fairly vulnerable throughout the game, so too much additional armor would be bad.

 

The additional power efficiency bonuses would stack with purchasable upgrades such as Turbines (just beware of relying too much on 2 or 3 super power plants!).

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't remember the name, maybe it was EAGLE RED, a RA2 mod which added veterancy to defensive buildings which was a great feature IMHO.

I haven't played too much BFME to really have a practical opinion about other buildings having a veterancy.

 

I think it would be a unique mod, but I don't think you could ever get it to a level of 'official' standards.

 

I like to nurture my units, I've never been a good spammer. So I think there's merit in your idea, because I do like the idea of adding additional value to buildings as well as units.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't remember if I replied to your thread on the official forums but I did copy+paste some posts into a Word document because I think I might toy around with some of the ideas in my Tiberium Wars mod.

 

I figure that since RA3 is supposed to be slower paced and not targeted at the ADD-paced competitive RTS sport, this would be the perfect time for EA to try something like this.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. If you like the ideas, please keep chiming in on the official boards.

 

http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?t...30&tstart=0

 

Refineries: slowly gain efficiency depending on the level of ore processed there. Let’s assume that a full load of Ore is $1000. When a single refinery has refined $15,000 worth of ore, it goes to Level 2. At 30,000, Level 3.

 

Level 2 - +20% health, +25% income ($1250 per Ore load)

Level 3 - +40% health, +50% income ($1500 per Ore load), and either a Repair Drone like C&C3 War Factories (unless Miners auto-repair again) or faster Ore unloading (again, depends if Miners just drop off ore like in RA2 or slowly unload like C&C3).

 

Refineries are often a target of choice, though as with Power Plants most of the better players do tend to just spam and sell them as needed. Since replacing a destroyed/sold Refinery gives another Miner anyway, it isn’t too painful to sell one that’s under attack. Often, it is not even a matter of saving it from being destroyed. Once Ore in one area is depleted, the initial Refinery is built and a new one is place closer to the next Ore field (again, with an extra Miner to boot).

 

The efficiency system mixes things up a bit. If RA2 is the model, then Ore will replenish slowly and Gems not at all. This will mean that it is important to have an efficient economy in the late game. However, many players will still opt for the fastest resource gathering possible to try to establish dominance in the early game.

 

This would potentially add a lot more depth to the economy. Do you stick with the usual ratio of roughly one Refinery per two Miners, or do you opt for fewer but more efficient Refineries (provided you keep them standing)? Keep using your starting Level 2 and 3 Refineries, or build new and less efficient ones closer to the next ore field? You have two Refineries near the same field: one at Level 3 and another at Level 1 – do you favor the Level 3 Refinery for more immediate income, or do you try to level up the one at level 1? You have a Gem field near your base – collect it first, or wait until you have a Level 3 Refinery? Best of all, all that depth of speed vs. efficiency can be added without making players really concentrate a lot more attention on econ management.

 

The health increases remain somewhat modest (and only beta testing will really determine optimal levels for these kinds of things), since Refineries should remain fairly vulnerable. They’re going to need a boost, though, because a Level 3 Refinery is going to attract a whole lot more unwanted attention from your opponents than a Level 1 one.

 

Share this post


Link to post

personally i'd say go for it o.o that would be a pretty cool add-on... i'm not too sure on the details and technical mechanics behind it but the idea of leveling up structures looks to be a good one n_n i always love playing with my bases and making them more advanced. so long as it changes the graphic of the building to show they are improved. if they're gonna do it, they have to do it right :3 if done right it could be a real bonus to the game o.o;

and being able to upgrade and evolve all units and buildings would be pretty cool too... similar to generals but with visible upgrades for everything rather then some things just like "armour upgrade!" and there's no change on the vehicle... and since it's RA3 it could be clearly visible cos the RA series always overexaggerates things xD

Share this post


Link to post

i think you should have to pay to upgrade structures.

Share this post


Link to post

o.O well yah i'd think that would be slightly obvious otherwise everyone would just upgrade quickly xD

Share this post


Link to post

its only fair if you have to pay like on bfme 2.

Share this post


Link to post

yah it would have to be pay-per-upgrade o.O it'll work just fine ^-^

Share this post


Link to post

...yah i guess that works too x3; but they started doing it in generals with the unit upgrades... so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend it to buildings o.o

Share this post


Link to post

bfme 2 was a great game.

Share this post


Link to post

Have to disagree on BFME2's pay to upgrade system being better than BFME's time/usage based one. Time is the hidden secondary resource in every RTS game. This system better takes that into account - if you harass your opponent effectively and force him to sell buildings while preventing him from doing the same to him you'll gain a significant edge in the time game.

 

Hopefully RA3 won't have C&C3's runaway economy, but even if it does this system would help control it somewhat. Huge cashflow won't automatically mean you can just carelessly place buildings and fully upgrade them off the bat whenever you want. It also addresses the problem of keeping structures and defenses from being used offensively in place of units without making buildings/defenses ridiculously weak. Most importantly, the system adds considerable depth without burdening the player with a lot of extra management, an issue RTS games have struggled with.

Share this post


Link to post
...yah i guess that works too x3; but they started doing it in generals with the unit upgrades... so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend it to buildings o.o

To an extent, you had unit upgrades in Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2. The only difference was they were all experience based and not purchased like in StarCraft.

Share this post


Link to post

now i read triplecp's last post and it makes a bit more sense... i guess time based might be better then paying upgrades... it would stop people finding ways to mass money and spamming tech quickly ._.

okie ew let's not bring starcraft into this >_> i guess you could make something combining both methods? you are only allowed to do the upgrade after a certain amount of time/experience, but you also have to pay large sums of money to actually put it into practice o.o i've seen that in games before like age of empires and it worked pretty well...

Share this post


Link to post
Have to disagree on BFME2's pay to upgrade system being better than BFME's time/usage based one. Time is the hidden secondary resource in every RTS game. This system better takes that into account - if you harass your opponent effectively and force him to sell buildings while preventing him from doing the same to him you'll gain a significant edge in the time game.

 

Hopefully RA3 won't have C&C3's runaway economy, but even if it does this system would help control it somewhat. Huge cashflow won't automatically mean you can just carelessly place buildings and fully upgrade them off the bat whenever you want. It also addresses the problem of keeping structures and defenses from being used offensively in place of units without making buildings/defenses ridiculously weak. Most importantly, the system adds considerable depth without burdening the player with a lot of extra management, an issue RTS games have struggled with.

That encourages camping.

Share this post


Link to post

The only problem is, if you change one mechanic, you need to change others until you have a strong and innovative package. What has been suggested here plays too much with what C&C is about and would (in my eyes) unbalance many of the existing mechanics. Before long you'll have to change the resource model, give extra initiatives to the player so they don't exploit certain areas, redesign other key areas and then finish it off with an interface that resembles something completely different. In effect you'd be changing so much, that it's be an entirely new game. Not a bad thing perhaps... but C&C thrives on being a title that redefined RTS, then took the Strategy away from the Real Time with the same old formula, while every other game evolved.

 

For C&C to be successful and always be that way, only minor changes need to be made. C&C needs to evolve slowly, but at the same time add in mechanics that don't alter the gameplay too much beyond the classic formula.

Share this post


Link to post
For C&C to be successful and always be that way, only minor changes need to be made. C&C needs to evolve slowly, but at the same time add in mechanics that don't alter the gameplay too much beyond the classic formula.

Quoted for truth.

Share this post


Link to post

It's really a pretty minor change compared to, say, the addition of the Crane and the Surveyor in C&C3 (which did break the economy - notice how Harvesters are gradually being "peonized" though armor and income nerfs)?

 

I don't see how anyone could argue that this rewards camping, either, unless its the old "defenses should always be pathetic" argument. If someone spams defenses in front of an attack, they'll be fairly weak. However, if someone had the presence of mind to strategically place defenses well before any attack is made, they will be more effective.

 

Take a second look at the reasoning behind both the Power Plants and Refineries. It's nothing drastic. The numbers wouldn't be anything set in stone, either...that's what the beta is for. It would give the devs the flexibility they need to adjust the game speed so games can reach the desired 20 minute mark they're aiming for without having them drag on forever. If you harass effectively and keep knocking down your opponents structures without him doing the same to you, you'll get the upper hand. This will compliment the similar rewards of unit veterancy...do a better job of keeping your units alive and leveling them up and it won't matter how much cash your opponent has.

 

We know EA won't be making Red Alert 2 in 3D, but the veteran C&C community has been tagged by some as closed-minded to any innovation. I don't think that's true...it's only bad innovations. I always thought the Crane and Surveyors were terrible ideas and wanted the option to disable them, not because I'm a total purist but I could see how they would totally undermine the MCV system. I hope they're gone from RA3. However, there are some ideas from other games that are worth looking at...this being one of them. Doing away with insta-build in favor of select-place-build is another one worth considering; certainly better than proposed alternatives like moving closer to a Dozer system.

Edited by TripleCP

Share this post


Link to post
now i read triplecp's last post and it makes a bit more sense... i guess time based might be better then paying upgrades... it would stop people finding ways to mass money and spamming tech quickly ._.

okie ew let's not bring starcraft into this >_> i guess you could make something combining both methods? you are only allowed to do the upgrade after a certain amount of time/experience, but you also have to pay large sums of money to actually put it into practice o.o i've seen that in games before like age of empires and it worked pretty well...

 

I just wanted to put out that C&C3 already combines time and money based support powers through the recharge... so no leap into the unknown for it to be applied to the research tree... at least in my opinion.

 

scientist#1 toils away for a clever idea... takes 360sec... then he applies for funding to implement his idea... cost $3600... perhaps another 36s to deploy.

 

(Saracen your comments about minor changes don't seem to gel with my *memory* of your initial reaction to C&C3.)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×